RF wrote: Quote: Like many of your other submissions, this does not seem to have any relevance to this board does it? This would be a DISCUSSION...

Ah...I see you did consider my submission.

No it was not relevant to anything on this board.

How did you conclude that without considering it?

Quote:

Considering the source of this claim, I would not think anyone would take offense.

That wasn't the question. You should have tried addressing it instead of going on the attack.

Quote:

Your credibility has taken quite a hit so such attempts would be expected in an attempt to try to make a case even if it were not true. It is a shame that so many of your posts have a question concerning the honesty of the material. Such credibility issues are hard to shake.

The questions of my credibility are in reality assertions supplied by you. Unsupported assertions. And you aren't important enough to worry about being a "hit" on my credibility.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote: No, it is not a whim. For example, one poster was banned for posting porn. There would not be a second chance for such an offense. I would have thought you could understand the difference between the levels of violations, but it appears I was mistaken.

So posting porn absolutely leads to the poster being banned. But there are no absolutes.

Seriously Wayne...are you that fond of wallowing in relativism?

See another case of less than honest presentation. Notice the context of the questions and the false claims you have made?

I notice you don't point out the false claims...simply assert they are there.

So tell me....does posting porn NOT absolutely lead to the poster being banned? That would falsify my claim, if it is true. Do you want to make that statement in your capacity as moderator?

Quote:

You indicate there was some reference to no absolutes when that was not the case.

RF wrote: Quote: Like many of your other submissions, this does not seem to have any relevance to this board does it? This would be a DISCUSSION...

Ah...I see you did consider my submission.

No it was not relevant to anything on this board.

How did you conclude that without considering it?

I saw it was from you, and therefore no reason to look any closer ...

Quote:

Quote:

Considering the source of this claim, I would not think anyone would take offense.

That wasn't the question. You should have tried addressing it instead of going on the attack.

There have been prior attempts to address this problem without success. It seems those who cause the problem cannot comprehend that they are being as difficult as others see them. Maybe you will show us how knowing about the problem causes a change in operations....or not.

Quote:

Quote:

Your credibility has taken quite a hit so such attempts would be expected in an attempt to try to make a case even if it were not true. It is a shame that so many of your posts have a question concerning the honesty of the material. Such credibility issues are hard to shake.

The questions of my credibility are in reality assertions supplied by you. Unsupported assertions. And you aren't important enough to worry about being a "hit" on my credibility.

You may say it, but unless you have been able to prove your prior claims it is clear you are not being truthful and thus have credibility problems. As for whether you think I am important enough to worry about your credibility being hurt when you are not truthful, that says enough about your credibility for anyone.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote: No, it is not a whim. For example, one poster was banned for posting porn. There would not be a second chance for such an offense. I would have thought you could understand the difference between the levels of violations, but it appears I was mistaken.

So posting porn absolutely leads to the poster being banned. But there are no absolutes.

Seriously Wayne...are you that fond of wallowing in relativism?

See another case of less than honest presentation. Notice the context of the questions and the false claims you have made?

Quote:

I notice you don't point out the false claims...simply assert they are there.

So tell me....does posting porn NOT absolutely lead to the poster being banned? That would falsify my claim, if it is true. Do you want to make that statement in your capacity as moderator?

Can you take a remedial class on context or something. Maybe some high school tutor can come over to your house and explain it to you.

you:

Quote:

If time outs are a finite quantity greater than 1 ....is someone with 0 pretty safe?

You ask if someone with 0 is pretty safe ... no absolute there.

me:

Quote:

Relatively speaking, yes, but there is no absolute and the magnitude of the offense is considered.

I agree with your statement that they would be relatively safe and that the magnitude of the offense is considered.

You:

Quote:

So it isn't a rule...it's a whim. That's fine, but one should be accurate in describing it.

Now you try to misrepresent what has been said before by calling it a whim and that it is not accurate to call it a rule. You have ignored what was said and taken off on another Strawman Fallacy argument. To be clear this would have been called a misrepresentation earlier, but given the attempts to hide it with more and more misrepresentations it is moving into the clear Lie category. I hope this is clear enough for you to see now.

Me:

Quote:

No, it is not a whim. For example, one poster was banned for posting porn. There would not be a second chance for such an offense. I would have thought you could understand the difference between the levels of violations, but it appears I was mistaken.

I try to give you an explanation.

Me:

Quote:

Notice you asked specifically whether a poster with 0 time outs would be safe, and I explained that they would unless their first offense was a major one. You then misrepresent that as a whim, which is corrected and you then try to misrepresent the statement yet again. You indicate there was some reference to no absolutes when that was not the case. You seem to be doing more and more misrepresenting of what has been said. If you continue to do so you will have no credibility left at all.

And again I try, will no apparent success.

Quote:

Quote:

You indicate there was some reference to no absolutes when that was not the case.

Quote:

Relatively speaking, yes, but there is no absolute....

Are there absolutes or not?

There are no absolutes to someone being safe with 0 timeouts, which was the context of the discussion before you tried to misrepresent it. This too would be a misrepresentation that is quickly approaching the Lie category. Now you have two clear examples, have you been able to provide examples of your claims are they lies as well?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Quote: Like many of your other submissions, this does not seem to have any relevance to this board does it? This would be a DISCUSSION...

Ah...I see you did consider my submission.

No it was not relevant to anything on this board.

How did you conclude that without considering it?

I saw it was from you, and therefore no reason to look any closer ...

Uh....nah...couldn't be. The Guardian of Truth wouldn't do that.

Quote:

Quote: Quote: Considering the source of this claim, I would not think anyone would take offense.

That wasn't the question. You should have tried addressing it instead of going on the attack.

There have been prior attempts to address this problem without success. It seems those who cause the problem cannot comprehend that they are being as difficult as others see them. Maybe you will show us how knowing about the problem causes a change in operations....or not.

Don't know what you're trying to say there. Not too interested in figuring it out. You'll have to do your own editing this time.

Quote:

Quote: Quote: Your credibility has taken quite a hit so such attempts would be expected in an attempt to try to make a case even if it were not true. It is a shame that so many of your posts have a question concerning the honesty of the material. Such credibility issues are hard to shake.

The questions of my credibility are in reality assertions supplied by you. Unsupported assertions. And you aren't important enough to worry about being a "hit" on my credibility.

You may say it, but unless you have been able to prove your prior claims it is clear you are not being truthful and thus have credibility problems. As for whether you think I am important enough to worry about your credibility being hurt when you are not truthful, that says enough about your credibility for anyone.

No Wayne...I don't have to prove claims to you. You're way off track. And I didn't admit being untruthful, as is implied in your post. But that's just you going on in your clumsy manner...so really, I don't hold it against you. I simply don't believe you are so important that your opinion of my credibility means much.

Quote: I notice you don't point out the false claims...simply assert they are there.

So tell me....does posting porn NOT absolutely lead to the poster being banned? That would falsify my claim, if it is true. Do you want to make that statement in your capacity as moderator?

Quote:

Can you take a remedial class on context or something. Maybe some high school tutor can come over to your house and explain it to you.

you: Quote: If time outs are a finite quantity greater than 1 ....is someone with 0 pretty safe?

You ask if someone with 0 is pretty safe ... no absolute there.

me: Quote: Relatively speaking, yes, but there is no absolute and the magnitude of the offense is considered.

I agree with your statement that they would be relatively safe and that the magnitude of the offense is considered.

You: Quote: So it isn't a rule...it's a whim. That's fine, but one should be accurate in describing it.

Now you try to misrepresent what has been said before by calling it a whim and that it is not accurate to call it a rule. You have ignored what was said and taken off on another Strawman Fallacy argument. To be clear this would have been called a misrepresentation earlier, but given the attempts to hide it with more and more misrepresentations it is moving into the clear Lie category. I hope this is clear enough for you to see now.

Me: Quote: No, it is not a whim. For example, one poster was banned for posting porn. There would not be a second chance for such an offense. I would have thought you could understand the difference between the levels of violations, but it appears I was mistaken.

I try to give you an explanation.

Me: Quote: Notice you asked specifically whether a poster with 0 time outs would be safe, and I explained that they would unless their first offense was a major one. You then misrepresent that as a whim, which is corrected and you then try to misrepresent the statement yet again. You indicate there was some reference to no absolutes when that was not the case. You seem to be doing more and more misrepresenting of what has been said. If you continue to do so you will have no credibility left at all.

And again I try, will no apparent success.

Quote: Quote: You indicate there was some reference to no absolutes when that was not the case.

Quote: Relatively speaking, yes, but there is no absolute....

Are there absolutes or not?

There are no absolutes to someone being safe with 0 timeouts, which was the context of the discussion before you tried to misrepresent it. This too would be a misrepresentation that is quickly approaching the Lie category. Now you have two clear examples, have you been able to provide examples of your claims are they lies as well?

Blah blah...

Wayne, if you can define a whale that is physically unrestrained from swimming anywhere in the ocean it can physically go, anytime it takes a notion as "not free", surely I can call a "whim" what you call a rule. Like it or not, I don't have to accept you as final word. Especially considering 1) There doesn't appear to be a rule, and 2) There is historical evidence of whim.

Quote: Like many of your other submissions, this does not seem to have any relevance to this board does it? This would be a DISCUSSION...

Ah...I see you did consider my submission.

No it was not relevant to anything on this board.

How did you conclude that without considering it?

I saw it was from you, and therefore no reason to look any closer ...

Uh....nah...couldn't be. The Guardian of Truth wouldn't do that.

Yes, it is the truth.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote: Quote: Your credibility has taken quite a hit so such attempts would be expected in an attempt to try to make a case even if it were not true. It is a shame that so many of your posts have a question concerning the honesty of the material. Such credibility issues are hard to shake.

The questions of my credibility are in reality assertions supplied by you. Unsupported assertions. And you aren't important enough to worry about being a "hit" on my credibility.

You may say it, but unless you have been able to prove your prior claims it is clear you are not being truthful and thus have credibility problems. As for whether you think I am important enough to worry about your credibility being hurt when you are not truthful, that says enough about your credibility for anyone.

No Wayne...I don't have to prove claims to you.

No, you can take the butt whipping you got and cry that you were thinking outside of the box. Maybe your little playmates will help you out by kissing it and making it feel all better ....

Quote:

You're way off track.

Not unless you can prove your claims were not false ....

Quote:

And I didn't admit being untruthful, as is implied in your post.

OK, then you can lie about being untruthful and see how that boosts your credibility ....

Quote:

But that's just you going on in your clumsy manner...so really, I don't hold it against you. I simply don't believe you are so important that your opinion of my credibility means much.

It is not just my opinion but that of everyone who has read this discussion, but you keep telling yourself whatever you want.

Quote:

Quote: I notice you don't point out the false claims...simply assert they are there.

So tell me....does posting porn NOT absolutely lead to the poster being banned? That would falsify my claim, if it is true. Do you want to make that statement in your capacity as moderator?

You have significantly changed your claim then. You do remember the context of the discussion do you not? Please take your time to SHOW me where this claim was made in this discussion. Your answer of "blah blah" does not support your lies at this time.

Quote:

Quote:

Can you take a remedial class on context or something. Maybe some high school tutor can come over to your house and explain it to you.

you: Quote: If time outs are a finite quantity greater than 1 ....is someone with 0 pretty safe?

You ask if someone with 0 is pretty safe ... no absolute there.

me: Quote: Relatively speaking, yes, but there is no absolute and the magnitude of the offense is considered.

I agree with your statement that they would be relatively safe and that the magnitude of the offense is considered.

You: Quote: So it isn't a rule...it's a whim. That's fine, but one should be accurate in describing it.

Now you try to misrepresent what has been said before by calling it a whim and that it is not accurate to call it a rule. You have ignored what was said and taken off on another Strawman Fallacy argument. To be clear this would have been called a misrepresentation earlier, but given the attempts to hide it with more and more misrepresentations it is moving into the clear Lie category. I hope this is clear enough for you to see now.

Me: Quote: No, it is not a whim. For example, one poster was banned for posting porn. There would not be a second chance for such an offense. I would have thought you could understand the difference between the levels of violations, but it appears I was mistaken.

I try to give you an explanation.

Me: Quote: Notice you asked specifically whether a poster with 0 time outs would be safe, and I explained that they would unless their first offense was a major one. You then misrepresent that as a whim, which is corrected and you then try to misrepresent the statement yet again. You indicate there was some reference to no absolutes when that was not the case. You seem to be doing more and more misrepresenting of what has been said. If you continue to do so you will have no credibility left at all.

And again I try, will no apparent success.

Quote: Quote: You indicate there was some reference to no absolutes when that was not the case.

Quote: Relatively speaking, yes, but there is no absolute....

Are there absolutes or not?

There are no absolutes to someone being safe with 0 timeouts, which was the context of the discussion before you tried to misrepresent it. This too would be a misrepresentation that is quickly approaching the Lie category. Now you have two clear examples, have you been able to provide examples of your claims are they lies as well?

Blah blah...

Quote:

Wayne, if you can define a whale that is physically unrestrained from swimming anywhere in the ocean it can physically go, anytime it takes a notion as "not free", surely I can call a "whim" what you call a rule.

I can call it not free because it is restrained by its nature and thus not capable of choosing for itself as in the following definition:

Main Entry: 1freeFunction: adjectivePronunciation: 'fre

choosing or capable of choosing for itself

Now how do you get the usage of "whim" out of this definition? I suppose you do not but you redefine it as you did the ad hominem fallacy, but that is just my opinion.

Main Entry: whimFunction: nounPronunciation: 'hwim, 'wimEtymology: short for whim-wham1 : a capricious or eccentric and often sudden idea or turn of the mind :

Quote:

Like it or not, I don't have to accept you as final word.

No, the dictionary is usually the final word for most reasoning people, but you may choose another that more suits your penchant for redefinition if you wish.

Quote:

Especially considering 1) There doesn't appear to be a rule,

There is not.

Quote:

and 2) There is historical evidence of whim.

Where? Beside your just saying it that is. Can you prove this better than you have proven your other claims?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Wayne, if you can define a whale that is physically unrestrained from swimming anywhere in the ocean it can physically go, anytime it takes a notion as "not free...

Yeh, I still don't "get" that one.

Unless I missed it, I didn't read that there were any barriers or that Luna was physically restrained, so that leads me to believe that he was free to come and go as he pleased.

Oh well. (shrug)

That would be because you do not know there are other definitions of the term "free" beside the "physical restraint" version, but that is just my guess.

No, I'm aware of all the definitions of the word free.

Luna was free to leave. Luna was free to swim wherever he wanted. Regardless of whether he missed and/or was waiting for his uncle, his mom, his dad, his sisters and brothers, or his aunts and cousins, he was free to leave the area. It's that simple, and no amount of trying to make it more than it is on your or anyone else's part will take away from that simplicity.

Wayne, if you can define a whale that is physically unrestrained from swimming anywhere in the ocean it can physically go, anytime it takes a notion as "not free...

Yeh, I still don't "get" that one.

Unless I missed it, I didn't read that there were any barriers or that Luna was physically restrained, so that leads me to believe that he was free to come and go as he pleased.

Oh well. (shrug)

That would be because you do not know there are other definitions of the term "free" beside the "physical restraint" version, but that is just my guess.

No, I'm aware of all the definitions of the word free.

Luna was free to leave. Luna was free to swim wherever he wanted. Regardless of whether he missed and/or was waiting for his uncle, his mom, his dad, his sisters and brothers, or his aunts and cousins, he was free to leave the area. It's that simple, and no amount of trying to make it more than it is on your or anyone else's part will take away from that simplicity.

Does that help you justify your behavoir in the other thread towards another poster? Arguing the semantics of free vs. restrained? Are your arms crossed while you blurt "Hrmph?"

Actually Grace you should look at what that other poster stated in her first post about the anger she felt because her icon had been free but not free. Seems that is the crux of the whole question. Also seems that the poster (I can understand her sorrow ) placed blame based on humans not doing WHAT SHE felt was the correct answer. Thus the judgements and controversy. RF/ Bean/red/Festus and I have noted those cliams are circumstancial. Wayne can not even address the fact that Luna was a natural enigma fre but not free but free . Althogh classed by Luna as a whale belonging to a Resident Pod & not a Trancient Pod when in fact the whale was flying Solo. If Luna had just said thanks Wayne ,I am sure most would have said they felt bad but Luna had to pass judgements which is what initial opened this can of worms. BTW, Rf is no liar despite the claims. I find that to be a very low blow especialy in lght of an internet bullying positional move like I didn't read your post after showing that a post had been read and then adding a Winky. I happen to like Wayne and RF very much..

However this attack the messanger format is obviously Ad Hominem and it is EXTREMELY EVIDENT.

_________________I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

BTW, Rf is no liar despite the claims. I find that to be a very low blow especialy in lght of an internet bullying positional move like I didn't read your post after showing that a post had been read and then adding a Winky. I happen to like Wayne and RF very much..

Donnie, I do not know how else to call it. When someone makes a claim they can either back it up or admit to their mistake. In this case the former could not be done, so there was a claim that I arbitrarily used a definition (which was disproven by the multiple references), and the other misrepresentations trying to hide the first proven misrepresentation.

Quote:

However this attack the messanger format is obviously Ad Hominem and it is EXTREMELY EVIDENT.

I am not attacking the messenger instead of the message, which is that definition of the Ad Hominem Fallacy. I am using the errors in the discussion to point out the weakness of the messenger, but that is not a logical fallacy. I am giving back some of the same treatment being given to others as an example that it is not as much fun to be on the receiving end as the giving end. When people like LSBF avoid posting because of this type of treatment it has gotten out of hand. You were at least intelligent enough to step back and let the dust settle on the issue. I have nothing personal against RF, in fact he reminds me a little of a younger me, but I have drawn my line in the sand on this matter. I have already told Josh that if I go too far in his mind I will step down as a mod. If I do step down as a mod whomever is left in this discussion will get the full treatment just like the good old days, except this is more than just for fun.

I will again propose that this can be dropped and we can move on as long as everyone understands there needs to be a level of respect included. The only other option would be to propose wholesale banning of the offenders. I do not know how that would fly with Josh, but do you or anyone else want to take that chance? This is approaching the problem we identified with the Phanto problem so there will be a correction in the future one way or another. This will be a different forum than FMB and that is a given too.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Thank you for addressing this Wayne. I Like the two of you guys very much but I stand by my claim that RF will not willingly Lie. He might get misread but he is honest to a fault. And yes I was upset with the way the thread went on the other forum. I did the right thing last and I do regret that and I think you know that has nothing to do with you, Luna or Josh's point of view. I gave a knee jerk reply and that is my fault. However the fact that a debate did take place was definetly something which was a result of how Luna replied to your post. Luna had a lot of excellent observations but she also must realize that she should have kept them to herself and accepted a moment of sorrow from posters who did care and recognize that not all posters do care. And to be fair you know as well as I that you didn't hand our young friend his ass on a platter. I give you more credit for integrity then that Wayne. Grace might fall all over that supposition but you and RF can share the bragging rights equally. In fact you would need to have lost your sense of humor to not see that he had som e fun with you to.

_________________I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.